Those who act and the others. Men react in three ways to globalisation: "some, the complacent market kind, applaud. Others get together to express their grievances. A third category takes action". It was the (rightly) famous French writer Erik Orsenna who made these definitions, adding that Pascal Lamy belongs to the third category, men of action. This comes as no surprise to regular readers of our editorials. I have sought on several occasions to prove that Europe is the moving spirit of the effort aimed at mastering globalisation, at giving it a human face, and that Pascal Lamy is, because of his office and his convictions, the person who drives this effort. The fact that this is today confirmed by a great writer gives it all the more weight. Orsenna makes this affirmation in his preface to the new book by the European Commissioner [Pascal Lamy "L'Europe en première ligne". Editions du Seuil. 27 rue Jacob, Paris] soon to be reviewed in our weekly "European Library".
Convincing Member States. Under this heading, I hope to place emphasis on two political lessons to be drawn. The first is institutional. Pascal Lamy's role in seeking to give EU external economic policy a direction that is not simply that of rightly defending European trading interests, but which also takes account of the interests of mankind as a whole, especially the poor and the disavowed, is well known. But Mr Lamy is aware that his effectiveness depends on Council support (that is, the support of the Member Sates) and the support of the European Parliament. He is the one who launches projects, who speaks to the third countries, who negotiates with them, but he could not do what he does if he had not first of all taken national objections into account and sought compromises where necessary (although such research may sometimes force him to cut back his ambitions). Mr Lamy never gives the impression of wanting this method to be modified or wanting the Commission to become the only future "European Executive". Regarding the decision which, he says, was the most difficult to achieve from Council, the "Everything but Arms" initiative, he writes that, if the Commission does not take part in the final decision, its role nonetheless remains crucial. Because the proposal which is being discussed comes from the Commission, and hence the ministers who wish to have details expect the Commissioner present to give the necessary explanations. Politically speaking, if the Council moves too far from the aims of the proposal, the Commission can show its disapproval, he says. This means that, if the Commission does not agree, the Council needs unanimity to modify the proposal. Pascal Lamy concludes by saying that, this is the complex mechanism that, for the past forty years, has allowed the European team to move forward, by securing a knowledgeable balance between European interests and the interests of States taken individually.
A method to be safeguarded. My personal conclusion is that: the experience lived through by a Commissioner who is strongly committed to his work and who does not hesitate to take initiatives leads him to support the "Community method" with its sometimes complicated balances, as long as three conditions are met: - the right of own initiative must remain with the Commission, the Council cannot modify proposals except by unanimity once the EU position has been defined, and it is the Commission that negotiates (for now, this third condition only exists in certain fields). These statements of fact should give food for thought to those who are planning to overthrow the way things work, either in the direction of an intergovernmental regime or, in the opposite direction, in order to make the Commission the Union's sole Executive.
Agreement on everything minus one point. My second consideration is more of a statement of fact. When the Commission shows proof of political will and determination, and its arguments are valid, it may, with the "Community method" obtain a great deal from the Council and even convince the Member States that express reticence. Pascal Lamy gives a brilliant, impassioned account of the ups and downs that accompanied the launch of the "Everything But Arms" initiative, as well as his battle to facilitate access by poor countries to medicine against AIDs and against other terrifying pandemics. There are those who rise up against the multinationals and who would like to be rid of them. The result would be to please the frustrations of an agitated few and to allow millions of people to die given the lack of medicines that only the large multinationals are able to perfect. As Erik Orsenna said, there are those who get together to grumble and those who act. Pascal Lamy has acted, with the results that we are all aware of. I must nonetheless add that, on one point, he has not convinced me: I do not believe that the unrestricted opening of the European market to farm products from the poorest countries will be an advantage to these countries. I am even quite sure of the contrary. I shall attempt to explain tomorrow why, on this one point only, I do not agree.
(F.R.)